Tadej, in the e-mail you sent there is an attachment that says: "text-analysis-annotation" - should the annotation be dropped?! I agree to Yves who said that annotation mighy be redundant

13:42:55 [omstefanov]

also dropping disambigClassRef

13:43:12 [omstefanov]

no changes for terminology, so still backwards compatible.

13:43:29 [omstefanov]

DaveL asks for comments from others involved

13:43:47 [omstefanov]

Marcis says, if I understand correctly, no change to terminology

13:44:30 [omstefanov]

it is important to drop the -annotation suffix.

13:44:42 [omstefanov]

Tadej says he'll correct examples

13:44:59 [joerg]

Does this then resolve issue-68?

13:45:01 [omstefanov]

Marcis says, as it now stands, issue 68 is resolved

13:45:31 [omstefanov]

chriLi says the comment of Marcis is very relevalant.

13:45:53 [omstefanov]

chriLi asks whether the data cat terminology should be deprecated

13:45:58 [Marcis]

Correction - I asked whether the issue would be resolved by the changes or not?!

13:46:14 [omstefanov]

sorry, Marcis, thanks for correction.

13:47:11 [joerg]

Why should terminology being deprecated? We still have different use cases.

13:47:15 [omstefanov]

Marcis says that as it now stands, the text-analysis data category does not cover all that the terminology category currently covers.

13:47:54 [omstefanov]

chriLi says he volunteered to see if he could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category

13:48:06 [omstefanov]

to subsume all the missing items from terminology

13:48:33 [tadej]

its:term=yes -> its:tanClassRef="nerd:Object"

13:49:23 [chriLi]

s/chriLi says he volunteered to see if he could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category/chriLi says he, Tadej and Marcis volunteered to see if they could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category that allow coverage for "term"

13:51:37 [Yves_]

local term='no' can be used to override a global rule.

13:51:39 [omstefanov]

DaveL asks what the difference is between its:term=no vs no term= entry

13:55:15 [omstefanov]

DaveL summarizes: Marcis still sees a use case for having the capability for "term=yes/no", whether that is in a separate data category or in the tan(ex. disambig) category.

13:56:26 [omstefanov]

DaveL says you don't support the possibility to capture BOTH an automated process and input from a terminologist.

13:57:37 [omstefanov]

DaveL asks how critical merging the two categories is

13:59:09 [omstefanov]

chriLi agrees with changes to former disambig data category, but suggests that we should come up with a solution to cover points still only in term category,